A comparison of liver fat fraction measurement on MRI at 3T and 1.5T

被引:2
|
作者
Athithan, Lavanya [1 ,2 ]
Gulsin, Gaurav S. [1 ,2 ]
House, Michael J. [3 ,4 ]
Pang, Wenjie [4 ]
Brady, Emer M. [1 ,2 ]
Wormleighton, Joanne [1 ,2 ]
Parke, Kelly S. [1 ,2 ]
Graham-Brown, Matthew [1 ,2 ]
St Pierre, Tim G. [3 ]
Levelt, Eylem [1 ,2 ,5 ,6 ]
McCann, Gerry P. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leicester, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Leicester, Leics, England
[2] NIHR Leicester Cardiovasc Biomed Res Ctr, Glenfield Hosp, Leicester, Leics, England
[3] Univ Western Australia, Dept Phys, Crawley, WA, Australia
[4] Resonance Hlth Ltd, Burswood, WA, Australia
[5] Univ Leeds, Multidisciplinary Cardiovasc Res Ctr, Leeds Inst Cardiovasc & Metab Med, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[6] Univ Leeds, Leeds Inst Cardiovasc & Metab Med, Biomed Imaging Sci Dept, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
来源
PLOS ONE | 2021年 / 16卷 / 07期
关键词
SAMPLING VARIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STEATOSIS; DISEASE; QUANTIFICATION; SPECTROSCOPY;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0252928
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Purpose Volumetric liver fat fraction (VLFF) measurements were made using the HepaFat-Scan(R) technique at 1.5T and 3T to determine the agreement between the measurements obtained at the two fields. Methods Sixty patients with type 2 diabetes (67% male, mean age 50.92 +/- 6.56yrs) and thirty healthy volunteers (50% male, mean age 48.63 +/- 6.32yrs) were scanned on 1.5T Aera and 3T Skyra (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) MRI scanners on the same day using the HepaFat-Scan(R) gradient echo protocol with modification of echo times for 3T (TEs 2.38, 4.76, 7.14 ms at 1.5T and 1.2, 2.4, 3.6 ms at 3T). The 3T analyses were performed independently of the 1.5T analyses by a different analyst, blinded from the 1.5T results. Data were analysed for agreement and bias using Bland-Altman methods and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). A second cohort of 17 participants underwent interstudy repeatability assessment of VLFF measured by HepaFat-Scan(R) at 3T. Results A small, but statistically significant mean bias of 0.48% was observed between 3T and 1.5T with 95% limits of agreement -2.2% to 3.2% VLFF. The ICC for agreement between field strengths was 0.983 (95% CI 0.972-0.989). In the repeatability cohort studied at 3T the repeatability coefficient was 4.2%. The ICC for agreement was 0.971 (95% CI 0.921-0.989). Conclusion There is minimal bias and excellent agreement between the measures of VLFF using the HepaFat-Scan(R) at 1.5 and 3T. The test retest repeatability coefficient at 3T is comparable to the 95% limits of agreement between 1.5T and 3T suggesting that measurements can be made interchangeably between field strengths.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Carotid MRI Detection of Intraplaque Hemorrhage at 3T and 1.5T
    McNally, J. Scott
    Yoon, Hyo-Chun
    Kim, Seong-Eun
    Narra, Krishna K.
    McLaughlin, Michael S.
    Parker, Dennis L.
    Treiman, Gerald S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROIMAGING, 2015, 25 (03) : 390 - 396
  • [2] Comparison of 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners in evaluation of acute bone stress in the foot
    Sormaala, Markus J.
    Ruohola, Juha-Petri
    Mattila, Ville M.
    Koskinen, Seppo K.
    Pihlajamaki, Harri K.
    [J]. BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2011, 12
  • [3] Comparison of 1.5T and 3T MRI scanners in evaluation of acute bone stress in the foot
    Markus J Sormaala
    Juha-Petri Ruohola
    Ville M Mattila
    Seppo K Koskinen
    Harri K Pihlajamäki
    [J]. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 12
  • [4] Comparison of 1.5T and 3T in assessment of suspicious breast lesions
    Ragupathy, S. K. Arcot
    Gagliardi, T.
    Redpath, T. W.
    Flynn, S.
    Jagpal, B.
    Begley, J. K. P.
    Gilbert, F. J.
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH, 2010, 12
  • [5] Comparison of 1.5T and 3T in assessment of suspicious breast lesions
    SK Arcot Ragupathy
    T Gagliardi
    TW Redpath
    S Flynn
    B Jagpal
    JKP Begley
    FJ Gilbert
    [J]. Breast Cancer Research, 12
  • [6] Hepatic steatosis modeling and MRI signal simulations for comparison of single- and dual-R2* models and estimation of fat fraction at 1.5T and 3T
    Shrestha U.
    Esparza J.P.
    Satapathy S.K.
    Vanatta J.M.
    Abramson Z.R.
    Tipirneni-Sajja A.
    [J]. Comput. Biol. Med., 2024,
  • [7] Quantitative DCEMRI of the Breast at 1.5T and 3T
    Pineda, F.
    Medved, M.
    Fan, X.
    Ivancevic, M.
    Newstead, G.
    Abe, H.
    Sennett, C.
    Karczmar, G.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2013, 40 (06)
  • [8] Susceptibility Effects in Hyperpolarized 3He Lung MRI at 1.5T and 3T
    Deppe, Martin H.
    Parra-Robles, Juan
    Ajraoui, Salma
    Parnell, Steven R.
    Clemence, Matthew
    Schulte, Rolf F.
    Wild, Jim M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2009, 30 (02) : 418 - 423
  • [9] Applications of dielectric pads, novel materials and resonators in 1.5T and 3T MRI
    Slobozhanyuk, A.
    Zivkovic, I.
    Shchelokova, A.
    Mikhailovskaya, A.
    Sushkov, I.
    Nenasheva, E.
    Melchakova, I.
    Belov, P.
    Webb, A.
    [J]. METANANO 2019, 2020, 1461
  • [10] Comparison of 1.5T versus 3T MRI of brain for target delineation in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients
    Pervez, N.
    Al-Dhaibani, N.
    Stanescu, T.
    Fallone, G.
    [J]. RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY, 2007, 84 : S1 - S1